Rushdan v. Hamkar et al

Filing 105

ORDER adopting in full 103 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 9/25/15. Defendants Hamkar, Ali, Nangalama, Tharratt, Toche, and Beard's 82 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED. Defendant Kelso's 85 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

ROBERT STANLEY WOODS, a.k.a.
SALADIN RUSHDAN,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

No. 2:12-cv-00562 MCE CKD (P)

ORDER

HAMKAR, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. §

18
19

1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On August 14, 2015, the magistrate judge filed Findings and

21

Recommendations herein (ECF No. 103), which were served on all parties and which contained

22

notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen

23

days. Neither party has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

24

The Court presumes that the magistrate judge’s findings of fact are correct. See Orand v.

25

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are

26

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

27

///

28

///
1

1

1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be

2

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.1

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed August 14, 2015 (ECF No. 103) are

5
6
7

ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. Defendants Hamkar, Ali, Nangalama, Tharratt, Toche, and Beard’s Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 82) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically:

8
9

a. The Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s contract claims against Defendants
Tharratt, Toche, and Beard;

10
11

b. The Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendants Hamkar, Ali, and Nangalama.

12

3. Defendant Kelso’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 85) is GRANTED.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: September 25, 2015

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The only inaccuracy in the Findings and Recommendations is the statement that
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action. See ECF No. 103 at 1. Contrary to that statement,
the docket and Plaintiff’s opposition to the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 91) indicate that Plaintiff
has counsel.
2